24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Season 7
Does Redemption count as an episode? I'm unsure of how to deal with this. It's different to the other prequels for obvious reasons, but should it be called an episode in its own right? --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 09:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Personally, I'd consider it a prequel just like the other prequels. Obviously it was presented differently and is much longer, but as far as how it relates to Season 7, it's really no different. --Proudhug 12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC) :I really disagree here, I think Redemption shouldn't be listed here. It's purpose I don't feel was as a prequel to Season 7, like all the other prequels, but as a bridge between six and seven. It's not actually an episode, so I really don't think it should be here. SteveTalk 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC) :: How can you say that. Redemption makes almost no reference to S6 or anything in it, while it directly involves characters and plot from S7. It was made during S7 to serve as a prequel to the season. --Proudhug 13:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Steve, it has to be listed on a season page, of course. Why would it be different to the Season 6 Prequel, or any of the others in that matter? --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ::Because its a TV movie, not a standard prequel. SteveTalk 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC) ::: I'm taking a position somwhere between you guys. I think it is a TV movie which is a prequel. I don't believe it is an episode. So I agree with Simon and Proudhug that it is a prequel in its function, but I agree with Steve that it's nature is that of a TV movie (and not an episode). 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC) No, no, no. Personally, I consider it a prequel. Unless it has Day X X:00xm - X.00xm, then in my book it's not an episode. Yes it was 2 hours real time, but it's not a part of Day 7. There's a gap (a gap of a few hours, if not a few days) between the end of Redemption and the beginning of Day 7. Close, yes, but if we are to consider this an episode, why not count the Day 4 Prequel an episode because it shows stuff a mere six hours before Day 4. I'm getting too into this... -WarthogDemon 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC) : To me the difference is that Redemption aired on television, the DVD prequels did not. If I can flip through the channels, see a block of primetime telling a story about Jack Bauer, and proclaim, "Hey! 24's on!" then in my mind that must mean I'm watching an actual episode of the show. --Proudhug 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :: That's a good observation. It's just that in my opinion, you wouldn't be right that it's an "episode" per se. Its nature is a TV movie, and its function is a prequel. Its nature isn't an episode, because it's between seasons. 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC) : The Simpsons, for example, has aired "special" episodes in between seasons and they count towards the total count. --Proudhug 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::No comparison can be made between 24 and The Simpsons. They are two completely different shows, but I don't think that Redemption should count as an episode. It was made to be a TV movie. That's the way it was advertised and that's what it is considered by the cast and crew (even the Golden Globes call it that). If, however, this movie is split into two episodes for syndication, then we can consider putting them as an episode, but for now we should just list it as a movie. (RangerSmith 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)) ::: Interesting. Anonymous user has indicated that the creators of the show count Redemption not only as an episode, but as two episodes. I'll defer to that if it is true. 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) : I'd imagine that any channel showing 24 in syndication would include Redemption as two episodes. --proudhug 02:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I think it's worth reviving this topic. Day 9: 6:00pm-7:00pm (episode 8 of 24: Live Another Day) was promoted as being the 200th episode of 24. This implies that Redemption shouldn't be counted as an (or 2) episode(s) of 24 for the purpose of numbering episodes over the whole series. I propose that whole-series episode numbering be changed to reflect this. --Jol123 (talk) 02:06, June 23, 2014 (UTC) :: I agree. "Redemption" was never an episode, or 24 would be 26. : By that rational, then "Live Another Day" isn't 24 either. I think still feel that Redemption is actually two "off-season" episodes of 24, regardless of the fact that the creators clearly don't include it in their count. --proudhug (talk) 01:52, July 2, 2014 (UTC) ::It's actually a two-hour movie, and not part of any "longest day". If it was two-and-a-half hours long, would it be two-and-a-half episodes? OneWeirdDude (talk) 02:00, July 2, 2014 (UTC) ::: Personally I think that the length (Day 2: 8:00am-9:00am and Day 3: 1:00pm-2:00pm) and timespan (Day 9: 10:00pm-11:00am) of Redemption are not relevant to this discussion. It only has one title sequence and closing credits, so if it is an episode at all then it is a single episode. --Jol123 (talk) 02:50, July 2, 2014 (UTC) Cast List I was just curious - should the cast of Redemption get a mention in the cast list? At the moment I am presuming that list comes from who was seen in the Season 7 sneak peak. I think somewhere the cast of Redemption needs to be included on this page, no? --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 14:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) : Your presumption is right. At the very least, I think a link should be provided to the Redemption cast list. This is because Redemption is so much more expansive and involved than previous Prequels. 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I know it might provide too many subheading, but the only way (aside from including it with the whole season cast list) that I can see to include it would be to have a seperate Redemption cast subheading under "Cast", with the appropriate subheadings given an extra "=" either side to make them sub-sub-sub headings, or whatever they would be haha. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :: I would think that Redemption shouldn't be included on the Season 7 page, since we don't include any of the other related features for seasons, such as Prequels, Debrief, and Conspiracy. Redemption was shot as a separate movie and all of its cast is listed on the Redemption page. Why would it need to be repeated here? --Proudhug 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC) : I agree with proudhug. Plus, we have most of the Redemption cast appearing in this Season except for people like Carl Benton who have somewhat of a major role. The only people that we wouldn't use would be like Desmond who is not major enough to be included under guest starring. --Mstouffer 17:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Spoilers Not all of the info mentioned in the synopsis was revealed in the first 17 minutes of D7, including some of the characters seen in the photo. I vote we remove this information and the photo, at least until we have IU character profiles on the official site. --Proudhug 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) : Ah sorry, I didn't release. My DVD hasn't arrived yet, and I thought the characters had been introduced. I'll do as you say and hide the image and info. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Awesome. Thanks. -Proudhug 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) : I'm really sorry, I didn't read the talk page before I put up the picture AGAIN. Haha. Won't happen again. Yeah two characters haven't appeared yet. Snsean11 06:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) No problem Snsean, that was something which was really easy to oversee since it was just those 2. On a slightly different topic, can't we open up the Guest star list, but leave the corresponding characters blank? I mean, the actors have been revealed already. 13:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) : I have a problem with this, mainly because the DP is supposed to be a list of the characters who appeared in the episode, not a list of the credits. --Proudhug 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Maybe we could list only the ones that have appeared. --Snsean11 05:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC) : That would make the most sense, to me. Perhaps the additional actor credits that aired in the opening can be moved to the BG&N section at the bottom until the episode officially airs. --Proudhug 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :: Ah you're absolutely right, about DP not being a carbon copy of the credits list. I failed to translate that into this situation. 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Can we take down the spoiler alert since Season 7 has started airing?—Snsean11 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Date Anyone remember when the Day 7 Wikipedia page showed that this season takes place in 2017? Can that be confirmed? The producers have said that they avoid using dates on the show, so.. -Dann-Fonda 17:56, 5 December 2008 : Wikipedia seriously isn't a reliable source. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ::Maybe not, but if it had a source, then it would be verifiable. That said, I can't find a source. I did see it mentioned at Wikipedia sometime back. Apparently 24 Season 6 was set in 2013, and Season 7 is set 4 years after Season 6, so logic would say it's in 2017. I did a google search, but found no "official" sources for the 2017 date. We should just write "set four years after Season 6" instead of "set in 2017". SteveTalk 11:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) That is what we have written. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC) According to this article Day 7 starts 13 years 2 months after Day 1. Day 1 was on Super Tuesday 2002 which is almost always in Feb or March. 13 years later is 2015. This would seem to be in keeping with a presidential election in 2014, twelve years after Palmer was elected in 2002. In the Allison Taylor article it states that Taylor had been president for 9 weeks and 2 days. Inauguration Day being the 20th January, this would put the date of Day 7 as Thursday 26 March 2015. So perhaps a date of 13 years 1 month would be more appropriate? -- 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :Day 7 takes place on November 2, 2007. This is confirmed in 11pm-12am (episode 16) when President Taylor signs the pardon for the man in Starkwood. If you freeze-frame on the document the first time you see it, the date is clearly given as "this second day of November, in the year of our Lord, and the Independence of these United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first". America's independence was in 1776, add 231 and you have 1997. Additionally, every computer in Season 7 seems to be running Windows Vista, albeit with titles blurred, but it is clearly Vista, and not XP, nor Windows 7, and Vista came out in 2006. Also, you can read the entire document; it was specifically authored for the show. Plot elements; the names Hodges, Juma, Seaton, and most importantly, President Allison Taylor, are all named, and the document looks, to my non-lawyer eyes, to be a pretty thorough contract of immunity, which is what's being offered. Watching it on VLC, I can see the frame at 31:01 (video time, not 11:31:01pm). Your mileage may vary, but that should put you in the neighborhood. Dark Reality 06:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC) ::I really don't think the writers/directors care that much for what year events really take place and, frankly, neither do I. It's obvious that the attempt is to keep the show in a perpetual "now" and I'm fine with that. These document doesn't change anything since I've read contradicting things when pausing to read other profiles and documents. Thief12 15:53, March 21, 2010 (UTC) 12pm-1pm summary The summary for episode 5 should be shortened. OneWeirdDude 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC) :I took a quick shot at it, shortened it from eight sentences down to just three. Hope that's good enough. SeanPM 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Cast list Now that the season is over, can we please trim down the 'recurring cast' list on this page? The characters of Joe Stevens, Robert Galvez, Marika Donoso, Tom Chapman, Alama Matobo, Rosa Donoso, Ken Dellao, and John Quinn were really minor parts of the season, and I don't think they need to be listed on this page. In fact, I'd list Doug Knowles before any of these characters. Willo talk 06:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Just my opinion - agree on Chapman, Stevens, and Rosa, and Alama. Not so sure on Marika and Galvez. The others fall somewhere in between for me. Michael Latham could probably also be removed. TiredAlex 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) : I would not remove Michael Latham. While the character itself was not very notable, the casting of John Billingsley is. Willo talk 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I think Marika was a fairly important recurring character as her arc was all about Dubaku's downfall and her sacrifice got them "the list". Galvez also had prominent screentime in the few episodes he was in (involved in the Tony twist, stopping Starkwood, final canister/threat, etc). I would keep those two characters but the rest I agree with. SeanPM 07:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Galvez, Marika, Latham and John Quinn should definitely remain. Galvez stole the canister for Tony and blew up a dozen FBI agents. Quinn only appeared in two episodes, but played a big role in killing Burnett and Senator Mayer. Marika was essentially responsible for the capturing of Dubaku. Personally, I'd remove Morris, Chapman, Ken Dellao, Rosa Donoso, Alama Matobo and Vice President Hayworth. Morris had virtually no role this season, neither did Hayworth. It's obviously tempting to list these characters because one is a former main cast star, and one is the vice president......but ultimately I think you have to ask yourself if they did anything notable during the season. Oh, and I'd also remove Gohar and Hamid Al-Zarian. EDIT: Galvez was removed from the list? In my opinion, his role was bigger than Vossler's and Nichols's...Galvez should be on the list, but you're the boss... so I'll respect the decision.--Mr. Flossy 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I say we get rid of Galvez. Though he did blow up the building, I don't believe having him in it effected 24. He was just a Starkwood operative just bribed by Tony, blew up something. I didn't see him as someone of high importance. --Mstouffer 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Someone already did remove Galvez from the list - I vehemently oppose that. First of all, let's think about what would've happened in the story if Galvez wasn't there: Tony would've never had the canister, and the cabal of conspirators would have nothing to attack the government with. Because of Galvez though, Tony was able to gain the canister....and the cabal had a new fall-back plan. Galvez was the main reason they had the canister. So, I think he belongs on the list because he was one of the big orchestrators behind one of the main-subplots of the season. I mean, if Vossler, Morris and Nichols are on this list, then so should Galvez. His role was much bigger than theirs.--Mr. Flossy 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) : The list is to include notability not length on screen or size of the role. I can see a case being made for Galvez and Marika, in fact, I'm willing to totally backpedal on Marika. She was a major part of the episodes she was in and certainly a character of note. However, John Quinn was nothing more than a non-descript baddie henchmen. Morris appears on the list (as does the VP) because they are NOTEWORTHY, not because they are large roles. Willo talk 03:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) OK, here's how I'm going to propose doing this. I'm going to post the current guest cast list. Under each entry, write YES or NO for each person and a brief reasoning behind your choices. You do not need to vote on all of them, but just enough to get an idea of where we stand. I've eliminated the ones I feel are obvious. I've also eliminated any major recurring characters who appeared in seasons prior to this one, as they are usually automatically included. Here's a sample of how it should look: Character A * YES: This character was in a lot of episodes and had several major arcs. User:A21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: All this character did was read exposition.User:B21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Voting Samantha Roth * YES: Was heavily involved with early season subplot. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: A big part of the early storyline with Henry Taylor, also appeared in Redemption. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Ditto. Thief12 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Erika * MAYBE: She was sort of just a device for the mole reveal. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Her character wasn't even important enough to receive a last name. She didn't really do anything major until her final episode (crashing the servers or something) and even then it didn't work. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * Neutral: She's on the "border" between major and minor character. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Refer to SeanPM's reason. --MistahWhippy 07:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * Neutral: Her first appearances were fairly minor and irrelevant; just bringing stuff to Larry or Sean. Thief12 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Nichols * NO: Not heavily involved with the episodes he was in. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * MAYBE: While more of a minor character, if you think about it this guy WAS connected to a lot of the villains. He met with Dubaku and Emerson, laundered money for Hodges (in order to support Juma) and was the reason Chris Whitley and Roger Taylor were killed if I remember correctly. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Appeared in Redemption and was fairly memorable in the season. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: He did nothing of note during the season, just aided Dubaku for a few episodes.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: He was the key to several loose ends among the villains. Thief12 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Marika Donoso * YES: I've had a reversal on this one. Put her in. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: She was a crucial part of the Dubaku storyline. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Absolutely; she foiled Dubaku when even Jack couldn't. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: She was the sole reason that Dubaku was caught.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Ditto. Thief12 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Robert Galvez * NO: Was only a major part of two episodes, and even then was not a character of consequence. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: You can't really explain the Tony twist or Larry's death without mentioning this guy. He supplied the final canister and was also the major threat in Day 7 2:00am-3:00am. The actor also appeared in the DVD special feature Hour 19: The Ambush. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Very memorable, and also critical to the continued plot with the prion container. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * Yes: He was the sole reason that Tony was able to gain the canister. Without him, the cabal wouldn't have had a fall-back plan.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Tied the Starkwood plot with the Alan Wilson threat. Thief12 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Edward Vossler * YES: Was given an episode where he was the MacGuffin. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Was a crucial part of 3pm-4pm, involved in the Brian Gedge storyline, and also appeared in Redemption. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Was essentially responsible for Samantha Roth's death, and captured Henry Taylor for Dubaku. --Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * Neutral: Not really memorable when you think about it, although the scene with his wife/kid was crucial. Thief12 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Martin Collier * NO: Only played a minor role in four episodes. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Not really important. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Why all the negative votes here? He was extremely important and was portrayed memorably by a well-known actor. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NEUTRAL: I'm not too sure about this one, but I'm leaning towards no. --MistahWhippy 07:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Didn't really have much of a role and only saw a short amount of screen time.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: I agree with Blue Rook... what's with all the negative? This guy was crucial to the White House plot of the final episodes. --proudhug 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Crucial to the Olivia Taylor cliffhanger, responsible for Jonas Hodges death, and played by a well-known actor. Thief12 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Benjamin Juma * YES: Juma was the key to the whole season. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Despite only appearing in three episodes he's one of the most important characters this season. Heavily mentioned early on, boss of Dubaku, attacked the WH/Pres, supplied Hodges with the threat in the second half... SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons as above.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Ditto. Thief12 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Jibraan Al-Zarian * YES: Has two episodes he is in the center of, was involved in a major subplot. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Big part of two episodes in the final arc, appeared in two main images. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Was a huge player in a major sub-plot. Definite yes.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Ditto. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Muhtadi Gohar * YES: For reasons above. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: The scene with Jack was memorable and note-worthy, but overall he had absolutely no role and saw minimal screen time.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Very crucial to the development of Jack's character. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) John Quinn * NO: A minor character of no consequence. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Although he did create quite the bodycount during his brief appearance. SeanPM 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: He owned Jack during their first meeting, and don't tell me that the fight scene wasn't extremely cool. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Killed two relatively major players of Day 7's events, Burnett and Senator Mayer. He also had an epic fight with Jack. Definite yes.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Definite yes. Very memorable character, awesome scenes, was also in Redemption. --proudhug 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Crucial during his few episodes, plus he appeared in Redemption, where he dispatched Chris Witley. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Sarah * NO: Not noteworthy. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Was only around for about an hour. Introduced in the second half of ep22 and died like 20 minutes into ep23. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: No reason for her to be here.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Ditto. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Bob * NO: Not noteworthy. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: For the same reasons I listed as Sarah. SeanPM 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Same reasons. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Nope, he just had a very small role.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * NO: Ditto. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Michael Latham * YES: John Billingsley was a big enough name to get solo on-screen credit, something the producers don't just hand out. Plus he serves as the MacGuffin for the whole season. Willo talk 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * MAYBE: While the actor himself is semi-big, his role on 24 wasn't that big. Latham appeared in 3 episodes mostly for only a few minutes each. The CIP arc was over by the 7th episode. SeanPM 23:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: First person seen in the season for a reason. 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * YES: Did two major things, A) Configured the CIP device for Dubaku and Emerson's crew, which was a major sub-plot. B) Assisted in Dubaku's escape by delaying Tony and Jack.--Mr. Flossy 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) * Neutral: Fairly small role, but if people think his name is too big, then go ahead. I, for one, hadn't heard of Billingsley before this. Thief12 21:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)